This topic is about the question of why don't people living in the english world care a little more about reforming their primitive justice system.

Critics of common law have always pointed out it's a primitive form of law that should have been abandoned by the english long ago, but it is still used in former english collonies. After the down of the roman empire, barbarian english reverted to tribal law. Then, they perfected this tribal law in an attempt to make it better. They introduced some small regulations and adopted the system of "precedent". The tribal leader now has to look at what other tribal leaders of the past decided in similar cases and take that into account.

How exactly are latin law and tribal law different ?

In normal law (latin law, used everywhere in the world), you have laws that regulate everything. The judge is more like a robot that judges based on these regulations. There is almost no room to jiggle around. On the other hand, in common law you don't have any laws at all, you just have a judge that judges the problem like a human. It's like tribal laws in africa. You go to the tribal leader and the tribal leader will try to judge based on your intention, judge like a human.

This has some advantages. In some instances, people take advantage of regulations from normal law and a bad intende person will win if he did everything correct and the other did not, despite his bad intentions. In common law, the tribal leader will judge as a human and there is no regulation to begin with.

The disadvantage of tribal law is that it's extremelly expensive and unpredictable. Nobody knows how a trial is gona end cause there is no regulation and the judge will judge like a human. Judging like a human, this makes it so that a good lawyer is gona influence a case infinitelly more than in latin law. It's usually the rich guy that wins. Tribal law is know for being a looot more expensive than latin law, not to mention unpredictibility. It also leaves a lot of room for corruption, sice it basically is no law and it all depends on the judge personal opinion. And there are another million problems that tribal law brings, problems well exposed by other more knowledgeable than me.

So what do you think about this ? Why is there no pressure in the english world to start using latin law like everybody else ? Why in the world do you guys insist on using this improved version of tribal law instead of changing to something better like all the rest of the world did already ? Is there at least any awareness in the english world general population that an alternative exists, or do most people think this is how things go in all the rest of the world ?

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Sad that your little and non-independent island is using this primitive system too ?

Civil law is based on latin law, that is why sometimes it is refferd to as "latin law". Common law used by the english is a barbarian development that should have been abandoned long ago. It is known to be extremely unjust, expensive and pro-corruption. It's also a law made by the judges instead of the parliament like in normal nations. These judges are not democraticly elected but appointed.

In depth criticism of this can be found by googling "criticism of common law". What I have written here is just a short description about the aspects where tribal law differs from civil law. There are many more of course, such as the fact that the prosecutor is actually hired by the sueing party and the overall dynamic of the trial is much more stupid and inefficient than in civil law.

Has there been any debate in english-speaking countries about reforming this outdated and highly inefficient justice system ? Why should such a thing be closed to debate ?

And the most important problem with tribal law is that it's considered by many to be a system that is not interested in finding the truth, the thing that is supposed to be the purpose of justice systems.

you mean roman law not latin. as I said latin is a language which is found in common and civil law systems. The UK has three distinkt legal common law systems one stemming from civil law (scotland). if you had done your research you would of found as the first google result.

http://lawgovpol.com/common-law-advantages-disadvantages/ wrote:Specificity. Common law expands on, clarifies and implements legislation. The wording of acts of parliament is often broad and generic, providing general instruction on the law but not how it should work in certain situations. The role of judges and common law is to examine specific facts for each case, interpret relevant legislation and administer the law in line with these findings. As one jurist put it, “common law puts meat on legislative bones”.

Unforeseen cases. Similar to the point above about specifics, common law can also respond to cases, situations and facts that were not foreseen or anticipated by legislators. It is impossible for parliament to legislate for every possible problem, action or condition that might arise in society. Common law can examine and develop responses to real life situations.

as you can see common law can evolve with the times and then the law makers can ammend the legislation to update or repeal laws as the need arrises, something solely down to legislators to take the initiative on rather than those working and trained in the application of the law.

and one chritisism of common law (it is not tribal law and not called such outside native American territories) that it is not democratic and lack of review, is rediculous, just because someone is elected does not mean it is a law that is the will of the people, just look what congress passed in the US where the elected lawmakers passed a law that is certainly unpopular (yes common law systems have civil law aspects), or frances labour laws. And the legislators can amend or repeal laws as they desire, also there are courts of appeal.

as is thecase with civil law each jurisdiction has its own debates about political issues and it is not a one wourld government, so I wouldn't know if there has been debates inevery common law jurisdiction, however I do know there is at least arguments being put forward in places.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

After the down of the roman empire, barbarian english reverted to tribal law.

Nonsense. The 'common' in 'common law' is there precisely to indicate that it is that part of traditional English law that was not merely local or tribal.

Roger Scruton wrote:
The 'common law' of England denotes the law common to the whole land, as opposed to the local customs and variations (such as the system of land tenure called 'gavelkind' which persisted until 1925 in Kent).
(England: an Elegy; ch. VI The English Law, 112)

I think this topic cannot be discussed without referring to political, economic and social structures of countries which shapes values and laws.

In more primitive societies, the central government is not as well established as the more developed ones. The absence of a strong rule of law limits the government's ability to impose taxes and laws, hence limiting their ability to provide adequate social services such as health insurance and social security.

In such an environment, the tribe becomes a substitute to a well functioning central government, or competes with it at best. If the individual shows loyalty to the herd (the tribe), the herd would provide protection and status in return.

Also political power is linked to numbers, and in the tribal system where each tribe includes tens of thousands of people, the tribe replaces political parties, and influence the laws and regulations.

In a modern society, the laws and regulations are usually formed according to the changing needs of society which are ideally based on objective observations of interactions between different classes and individuals within the society. In a tribal society, however, it is based on old traditions and values that are often vague and not very well defined such as honor, bravery, generosity ...etc and which are often the outcome of storiology of wars and conflicts between different tribes.

And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

To clarify, what countries use the type of tribal/common law systems that you are thinking of?

Maybe some native american indians?
chownah

the native american legal system is theonly one I know of (although I am sure canada and maybe african countries may have similare)actually refered to as tribal law. there is allot of mix up in the claimes being made.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

you mean roman law not latin. as I said latin is a language which is found in common and civil law systems. Latin Law may refer to the time when laws were writen in latin in europe, however it would be a time period of legal history rather than refering to a legal system.

The UK has three distinct legal common law systems one stemming from civil law (scotland). if you had done your research you would of found as the first google result.

http://lawgovpol.com/common-law-advantages-disadvantages/ wrote:Specificity. Common law expands on, clarifies and implements legislation. The wording of acts of parliament is often broad and generic, providing general instruction on the law but not how it should work in certain situations. The role of judges and common law is to examine specific facts for each case, interpret relevant legislation and administer the law in line with these findings. As one jurist put it, “common law puts meat on legislative bones”.

Unforeseen cases. Similar to the point above about specifics, common law can also respond to cases, situations and facts that were not foreseen or anticipated by legislators. It is impossible for parliament to legislate for every possible problem, action or condition that might arise in society. Common law can examine and develop responses to real life situations.

as you can see common law can evolve with the times and then the law makers can ammend the legislation to update or repeal laws as the need arrises, something solely down to legislators to take the initiative on rather than those working and trained in the application of the law.

and one chritisism of common law (it is not tribal law and not called such outside native American territories) that it is not democratic and lack of review, is rediculous, just because someone is elected does not mean it is a law that is the will of the people, just look what congress passed in the US where the elected lawmakers passed a law that is certainly unpopular (yes common law systems have civil law aspects), or frances labour laws. And the legislators can amend or repeal laws as they desire, also there are courts of appeal.

as is thecase with civil law each jurisdiction has its own debates about political issues and it is not a one wourld government, so I wouldn't know if there has been debates inevery common law jurisdiction, however I do know there is at least arguments being put forward in places.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

And the most important problem with tribal law is that it's considered by many to be a system that is not interested in finding the truth, the thing that is supposed to be the purpose of justice systems.

that is only refering to one common law system and I wouldn't say a good argument. if you do your research common law as found in the British isles developed safeguards in the 15th Century to and before which are still in effect today because they are fare, one example is the Burden of proof and time limit for police custody to gather evidence and charge people within the law.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

After the down of the roman empire, barbarian english reverted to tribal law.

Nonsense. The 'common' in 'common law' is there precisely to indicate that it is that part of traditional English law that was not merely local or tribal.

This just goes to show there was a need for such an indication in the first place. It's pointing out the fact that it's not just local tribal law, it's mainstream tribal law. In areas of europe that did not revert to barbarism, civil law continued to be used even after the fall of the roman empire. Today, civil law is used basically everywhere in the world except UK, US, AU, CA. It doesn't take an eagle eye to notice it's superiority over tribal law.
Sure, civil law has it's disadvantages too, but it's much better overall than tribal law.

Besides the arguments made by me or by that writer in The Atlantic that I linked, there are many other well known problems. It's an inquisitorial system, based on the idea of "I blame you that you did this, you go and show that you didn't". It has a totally different dynamic than civilized people law. Those living in the english world might not realize how civil law works and how strange this tribal law looks to a person living in a civil law country.

that is only refering to one common law system and I wouldn't say a good argument. if you do your research common law as found in the British isles developed safeguards in the 15th Century to and before which are still in effect today because they are fare, one example is the Burden of proof and time limit for police custody to gather evidence and charge people within the law.

I think he is speaking about USA law over there. If there is anything different in UK law, such differences can only be minor. The whole foundation of the system, the strange dynamic of it, etc. make it to be very bad at finding the truth. And statistics speak for themselves. Common law has a huge percentage of innocent people thrown to jail and guilty people escaping. The article I quoted does not provide too much such statistics but one can search and find more detailed ones. Leaving aside all the tribalism of it, why keep in place a system that is so inefficient at finding the truth ?

In more primitive societies, the central government is not as well established as the more developed ones. The absence of a strong rule of law limits the government's ability to impose taxes and laws, hence limiting their ability to provide adequate social services such as health insurance and social security.

In such an environment, the tribe becomes a substitute to a well functioning central government, or competes with it at best. If the individual shows loyalty to the herd (the tribe), the herd would provide protection and status in return.

I actually have this type of law existing in my country too. Gypsies do their best to live segregated from the rest of society and of course they have a "common law" type of system in place. It's more sophisticated than african tribal law, but worse than today english common law. It's somewhere around the middle ages in terms of sophistication.

I even drove pass such a gypsy trial about a month ago. They are conducted in open air with hundreds of people present at them. The judge of such trials is the gypsy king of the area who is always fat, sits on a high throne in the middle and even has a book with some gypsy laws in there. It is quite an interesting event to witness.

The only difference between UK/USA/AU common law and gypsy law is the thickness of that book. Everything else is the same. It's a totally different system, totally different dynamic than in civil law used in the rest of the world.

The burden of proof is with the accuser, not the accused.
The accuser always has to provide the legal evidence to support their claim. Claiming it is inefficient and the system being inefficient at finding the truth aren't the same. Show your evidence. As a prosecutor in a common law system would have to.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill